Last week was a great victory for First Amendment rights.

In a full reversal, the state Ethics Commission dropped its complaint against Kris Van Meteren for speaking to the press about a complaint he had filed against State Sen. Dwayne Umbarger, R-Thayer.

The commission did so after being informed by the attorney general’s office that the law was clearly unconstitutional and that they had violated Van Meteren’s free speech rights with its prosecution.

But in the rush of celebration, there should also be continued questioning by state officials as to why the law is being so selectively applied. At the heart of the matter is why the commission is more interested in pursuing fines against a private citizen rather than its own staff for violation of the same statute.

Van Meteren was fined by the commission for speaking to the Topeka Capital-Journal and Kansas Liberty. The Capital Journal article that the commission accepted as evidence at Van Meteren’s hearing included this information disclosed by Carol Williams, executive director of the Ethics Commission.

“Williams said Van Meteren might have committed a crime by speaking with The Topeka Capital-Journal about his case. A commission investigator in Topeka is looking into a possible counter complaint against Van Meteren.”

There’s a lot going on in that paragraph, so let me break it down piece by piece for you. First of all, I can’t overlook the irony of Williams telling the press the commission was considering a counter-complaint against Van Meteren for speaking to the press.

That’s certainly ugly enough to question the motivation of Ethics' staff. But there’s much more going on here. According to the commission’s own interpretation of the law, once a complaint is filed, no one is allowed to even acknowledge it exists. Ever. Williams confirmed this interpretation in the same article.

"The moment you walk in this door and file a complaint," she said, "you are prohibited by law, a class A misdemeanor, of discussing the fact that you walked in here and gave us that complaint.”

So, why wasn’t Williams prosecuted for confirming the existence of Van Meteren’s complaint against Umbarger? She was very willing to speculate that he “may” have committed a crime by speaking to the press, yet by doing so Williams verified a complaint against Umbarger had indeed been filed. 

Let me say that again another way. When she said Van Meteren may have violated the law by talking about his complaint, she implicitly acknowledged that he had filed a complaint. It was the independent verification the reporter needed to say in print a complaint existed. And it was a clear violation of the law — a class A misdemeanor according to Williams herself.

Williams was so blinded by her desire to pursue action against Van Meteren that she forgot her own interpretation of state statute. No one can confirm a complaint has been filed. Ever. Even if the guy who filed the complaint speaks to the press. Even if you think that’s a violation of state law.

It’s not even a difficult case. The Cap-Journal article was submitted and accepted as evidence by the commission in the case they built against Van Meteren. The authenticity of the article and its information has already been verified by the commission. If Williams hadn’t disclosed the existence of the complaint against Umbarger, as the article claims, one would assume she would have corrected that information during Van Meteren’s hearing. And yet she didn’t.

So it’s safe to say that even Williams herself agrees to the veracity of the information in the article.

It’s such an open and shut case, the only question that remains is why the commission hasn’t pursued enforcement of laws they clearly haven’t had problems enforcing in the past. Perhaps it’s because the commission has also shown its willingness to look the other way when it comes to breaking confidentiality laws. It just depends on who you are.

In the last days of the 2006 election, former Attorney General Bob Stephan faxed a letter to the Associated Press in which he alleged campaign finance violations by former Attorney General and Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline. It was the same letter he had submitted to the Ethics Commission for investigation. Williams, following state law, declined to say whether there was an investigation open. Kline was later vindicated on a 6-0 vote.

Yet here we are nearly three years later, and I don’t recall seeing anything about the commission pursuing fines against Stephan for speaking to the press about his complaint. That’s in addition to no action concerning a clear violation by its own executive director.

Perhaps what the commission needs is a little help. After all, one could hardly expect Williams to file a complaint against herself. That’s why Tuesday, today, I filed a complaint with the Ethics Commission against Williams for her disclosure of the complaint against Umbarger. Perhaps what the commission needs is a little jump start.

It’s my expectation that the commission will look at the evidence, evidence that they have already verified, and carry out the same swift action they carried out so zealously before. No one is above the law, and the public should demand its uniform application. State employees who violate confidentiality statutes face severe fines and removal from state employment for five years. I expect nothing less from the commission.

A state employee breaking the law is cause for concern. But really the bigger issue here is a corrupt commission that is supposed to be above politics and favoritism. Its past actions have shown they are hardly above the fray and are completely willing to roll around in the mud to protect someone they know and like.

Talking to the press is one thing; protecting politicians is another. 

________

James Meier is a student at the University of Kansas.

The Week in Review